"Chomsky is a genius yes, but you know as well as
I do, besides his encyclopedic memory, his genius is almost largely relegated
to linguistics. His political commentary, while often correct, is actually
transparently simple. I don't think the general public struggles to understand
his political points. So we don't have to say genius in politics must be
tantamount to Chomsky's genius in linguistics (which the general public would
and should find confusing - 'merge' is infuriatingly difficult for me to
wrestle with)."
Noam's capacity for absorbing and remembering factual detail is phenomenal, and since he is supremely intelligent and clear-minded, his mustering of that detail is impressive and usually overwhelming. But he speaks and writes from the standpoint of a disillusioned moralist. He does not seem to possess, or at least to deploy, the sort of deeper insight into capitalism that Chris and I more or less take for granted. If I may attempt something approaching a bon mot, he unfailingly locates everyone's clay feet but seems not to grasp the distinction between base and superstructure.
On the other hand, his grasp of grammar is transformative.
49 comments:
"On the other hand, his grasp of grammar is transformative." I see what you did there.
Is it fair to suggest that the difference between Chomsky as linguist and Chomsky as political commentator is more or less the equivalent of the difference between an academic intellectual and a so-called public intellectual? Is it also possible that even if he does grasp the distinction between base and superstructure he nevertheless prefers to occupy the position of public intellectual, and therefore he intentionally declines to elaborate on that distinction?
He definitely thinks Capital is mostly just an 'abstract' book, and hence has little basis in reality. He also seems to write off all continental philosophy. Moreover, his strand, as Professor Wolff rightly points out, of 'disillusioned moral' critique, is usually the following: The State/Corporation claims to be doing X, but in fact it's doing Y. What makes his standard 'you say x but do y' critique more impressive than all other political activists, is the encyclopedic memory he marshals against state and corporate actors. E.g., all of us lefties know the Vietnam War 'was bad' and hypocritical, Chomsky knows it's bad and hypocritical because he seemingly knows what literally happened every goddamn day in Vietnam (dating back to the French occupation through the LBJ regime)! His memory is impressive on that point, but his critique is mundane.
As I said to Chris in the previous thread, Chomsky's work on manufacturing consent is quite insightful into the deeper processes of how capitalism manipulates us.
Chomsky is an anarchist and an individualist. Not an individualist in the sense of, say, Ayn Rand, but in the sense that he puts a lot more stress on individual responsibility and less stress on the system than you do. He seems to believe that changing society is a question of individuals becoming aware of how unjust it is and of working together (not individually) for political change.
As Chris says here, he writes off almost all continental philosophy.
In some sense, Chomsky is a liberal (not in the Krugman sense), but in the sense that Mill is a liberal: let's say that Chomsky is Mill the liberal transformed into Mill the libertarian.
Another possible model for Chomsky is Orwell who of course was never a Marxist, although he was a socialist. Like Orwell, Chomsky is very anti-communist.
Well what did this grasp transform you into? That should be worth writing about...
I think you are selling Chomsky short. His knack for speaking simply belies, I believe,
his way of using a deep and complex set of ideas to undergird his support for various institutional
frames for work and economy. Below are brief examples showing how his thoughts on
language feed into his thoughts on creativity, education, and work that to me, rival Marx's
thoughts on alienation for their clarity and power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prh6qXcdmZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWXIBJ2640s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fQroFeoD9U
Couldn't it be that Chomsky (who is very well read in the traditional leftwing classics) "grasps the distinction between base and superstructure", but isn't entirely convinced by it?
Thanks for the links, Jerry.
Ahh, Professor Wolff, that joke was made fifty years ago---I believe by Sidney Hook, though it might have been from another Sidney, one Morgenbesser. These are two of my favorite philosophers. Had you any experience with either of them? I prefer anecdotes to politics these days.
JGKess, if you prefer anecdotes, read the relevant sections of my Autobiography, filled with anecdotes about Morgenbesser and with one about Sidney Hook.
If there's one thing to be said about Sydney Hook, (well, there's many things), at least he intellectually disembowelled William F. Buckley Jr. on Buckley's, "Firing Line" program, lo those many years ago. Never could stand Buckley, but I dug his sailing books.
I *hate* to disagree with Jerry (whose posts along with Chris's and S. Wallerstein's are my favs), but I have to side with Chris on this one. No doubt at the back of Chomsky's analyses are a set of ideas--both explanatory and prescriptive--that are grounded in what he himself used to refer to (back in the 60s, and in interviews with fellow leftists steeped in theory) as "left-Marxist" or "anarcho-Marxist." But there are three buts.
First, even in their best form, the explanatory component of the ideas have never been very well-developed: a kind of vulgar Marxism lies at the back of most of his analyses. Now that's not a big problem, since vulgar Marxism can explain a lot, especially when wielded by someone with Chomsky's supple mind and command of the facts. But it remains thin gruel: e.g., not only does Chomsky never seriously grapple with deep-seated imperatives of capital in shaping the context and content of domestic US policy (it's all just a rapacious "state-corporate nexus"), he really does not seem to understand the mechanisms underlying long-term, world-historical economic developmental trajectories, as evidenced by his citing of Robert Gordon's work on long-term economic growth in rebuttal of Steve Pinker's liberal cheerleading. But Gordon's work is laughably blinkered when compared to, say, that of Robert Brenner's.
Second, the same goes for his normative or prescriptive views, which are rooted in the liberal-individualist tradition of von Humboldt, etc, and which he always insists on claiming basically anticipate Marx's ideas on alienation. Sorry, no, that's just not the case. The ideas of self-realization through the development of powers and needs that are historically-conditioned and always already within relations with others (hopefully relations of mutual recognition) that are the legacy of Hegel and Marx (building on Aristotle) are *miles* away from the Platonist-liberal views of Chomsky. Indeed, one might (and I would) even say they are diametrically opposed.
Underlying these are *deep* differences in theory and method and even at his very best and frankest (i.e., when acknowledging some affinity between his views and a left-Marxist tradition), Chomsky is firmly and blinkeredly on the so-called analytic (I would say arid and superficial) side. This being the third but.
Unlike our gracious host, who delves deeply and brilliantly into Marx and Freud along with many others (e.g., Mannheim, Marcuse) firmly on the other side of said line. (Why Prof. Wolff should despite Hegel so much is a fun mystery! This despite accurately giving Hegel credit for the originating ideas of (modern) society as a distinct object of study, which ideas Prof. Wolff so brilliantly develops in, e.g., Moneybags Should be So Lucky or his critique of analytical Marxism.)
talha:
I *hate* to disagree with Jerry too, but after reading your remarks, I may have to!
Talha,
Your 'First' point is spot on. Well, all your points are, but the first one I think entails the next two. If you ever listen to Chomsky answer questions like "but why did the state X" or "why did the corporation x", his analysis is often shallow. "Because they can" - "Because what they say goes" - "Because they have power". Uh that's it? There's all kinds of things I can say, do, and have power over in my life that don't instantly lead entail viciousness in action, even if it's possible in principle.
Chomsky's answers in this interview are completely circular and non-explanatory (albeit factually correct):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHYTMtxdYw
And yes, he is certainly an analytic, individualistic, structures are innate and immutable sort of philosopher which is radically divergent from the Marxian-Hegelian tradition. And for him justice is a platonic form waiting to be realized by our innate mental faculties and structures.
-----------------
One point that greatly troubles me about Chomsky's vulgar Marxism, and the degree to which if he does have a base superstructure theory it's reductively crude, is that I remember he argued that 'On the Waterfront' was a 'bad' movie because it didn't celebrate unions. Okay...
Chris,
Agreed in toto! (Including that the first entails the latter two--was just trying to be analytic rather than... well, you know.)
And thanks Jerry!
I'm going to try to make the case for Rabbi Noam.
Chomsky believes that people with power will tend to abuse power. That doesn't mean that everybody who has power will abuse it, but that there is a human tendency to abuse the power that one has. So the fact that you (Chris) have power and do not abuse it is neither here nor there.
It seems to me that in fact, power often does corrupt and people often abuse power, and maybe if Marx had been more conscious of that, the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism would could have been avoided. I'm not blaming Marx for Stalin, but Marx and the Marxist tradition often seem very unaware of the dangers of tyranny.
Chomsky also believes in individual moral responsibility, as is clear from his debate with Foucault, etc. I believe that he is a moral realistic in some sense, but once again, that is neither here nor there.
Marxism, as I understand it from what my high school history teacher Mr. Goetz (thank you, sir) taught me over 55 years ago, does not see capitalism in moral terms. The capitalist, according to Mr. Goetz, is not a bad person: he exploits his workers and screws the consumer, because otherwise, he cannot compete with other capitalists and will go out of business.
Chomsky, on the other hand, seems to believe that those who exploits their workers and screw the consumers (and destroy the environment) are morally responsible and blameworthy.
I'm not sure that I disagree with Chomsky. Why isn't the capitalist responsible for the human and environmental damage that he or she causes? Isn't the person who decides to become a school teacher or a college professor instead of going to work on Wall St. somehow morally praiseworthy?
In addition, Chomsky is a super-star because among other reasons, most people think morally and thus, his moralistic approach appeals to the masses more than the more structural approach found in Marx and in Hegel (I've never read a word of Hegel, I confess, I couldn't even finish Marcuse's book about him).
So I think that a synthesis of what Rabbi Noam contributes to leftwing thought with Marxism might be valuable.
First, I think it is of fundamental importance to distinguish between (a) a critique of capitalism that draws upon values--which I believe the Marxian critique does, whether or not Marx wants to admit it (see here, from a very large literature, Prof. Wolff's nice discussion of the question in _Moneybags_, regarding Marx's proto-Nietzschean attitude that caring about values would "unman" him); and (b) a critique of capitalism focused on individual-level moral responsibility. One can fully embrace a value-laded critique of capitalism that calls for action oriented toward changing the social relations, without focusing on any individual-level moral responsibility of individuals for acting according to existing social roles, or under the constraints and opportunities of the present system.
This is not so say one can't also engage in finding people individually morally blameworthy for their actions--inside or outside such social roles. But the point is we should keep separate two possible criticisms of a Marxian approach: (a) it is silent about values; and (b) it is not interested in individual-level moral responsibility. I take the first to be an important criticism if true (which I don't think it is), while I think the second is an important *strength* of Marxian analysis.
None of this is to stop you from finding "the capitalist responsible for the human and environmental damage that he or she causes" in some individual moral sense if you want. But the point is that focusing on individual-level responsibility is (a) not every helpful explanatorily: even if each individual felt awful for what they did, if they refused then they would be out of a position and someone else would surely take their spot owing to a need for material survival/success in given conditions plus a dominant ideology that prevents most from seeing these roles as socially destructive; and (b) for similar reasons, it is not very helpful in terms of promoting change, but rather encourages a myopic focus on individual-level responsibility rather than targeting the social system of constraints and incentives that promote socially (and ecologically) destructive behavior. And, of course, such individual-level focus is often (I'm not saying it is in your case S. Wallerstein) accompanied by taxing and often toxic exhortations of moral responsibility-cum-purity that, frankly have nothing to with the problem and everything to do with a misplaced focus on some pseudo-problem of "hypocrisy" (e.g., the Fox News talking point that shouldn't Bernie fly on planes to campaign?!). In other words: yes, sure, those benefiting from existing destructive conduct can be ethically called to account, but the point is to change the system enabling this conduct.
I understand that we have to change the system, but that doesn't exclude holding people morally responsible in any way.
Let's say a man hits his woman partner. That's the product of a patriarchal system to be sure, but we'd still hold him morally responsible.
Or take Eichmann, who was only doing his job within the system. He was hanged for that, and that's one case where I'm not against the death penalty.
Virtue signaling and "holier than thou-ism" are disagreeable, but that doesn't mean that we should throw out the baby (the concept of virtue) with the bathwater (virtue signaling).
In any case, most people see things in moral terms and one reason that Chomsky has a huge mass following is that he appeals to that moralism and whether or not people end up on the left for good or bad philosophical reasons (I like Nietzsche myself) the important thing is that they vote for the left.
"In any case, most people see things in moral terms and one reason that Chomsky has a huge mass following is that he appeals to that moralism"
Well I agree most people see (and should see) things in value-laded terms--my point is that this is not the same as seeing social phenomena primarily through the lens of individual-level moral responsibility. If most people do, then my own view is that this not some "natural fact" that can't be changed but is in fact an important task of consciousness changing on the part of the left. It is precisely the valorization of what "most people think" as "common sense" or even "natural" that I think is the worst aspect of Chomsky's thought. Much more apt I think is Gramsci's view: much of what we take to be "common sense" is just our unreflective or spontaneous consciousness in a given set of historically-specific social relations and circumstances, which we can and should reflect and deliberate upon. To naturalize it is to naturalize the social relations associated with it, and to take both the relations and the associated consciousness off the table as something amenable historical change through reflection and action.
I'm not sure whether Chomsky sees "what most people think" as "natural": he did write Manufacturing Consent, which shows a quite sophisticated understanding of how indoctrination works.
However, he does share "common sense" morality or at least does not question it in his talks or political writing.
I agree with you that Gramsci is correct that "common sense" is historically determined and in general, is reflection of whatever power elite is hegemonic. It would be great if people reflected and deliberated upon their common sense beliefs, but that's very difficult to bring about and given the multiple threats facing all of us, nuclear weapons, global warming, and the degree of alienation and exploitation brought about by
neoliberal capitalism, it would be a huge step forward if masses of people turned their
"bourgeois" moral notions, those of individual responsibility, against elites instead of directing them against minorities and immigrants. Chomsky seems to propose that, as far as I can see. I don't see that as naturalizing existing social relations, as you claim.
In politics you work with what you have and what we have is a mass of exploited people with a consciousness based on a sense of individual responsibility. Let's get them to blame big business, to blame Silicon Valley, to blame Wall St., to blame Mark Zuckerberg, to blame the CEO of Goldman Sachs, etc., and to vote in people with Chomsky's sense of honor, of social justice and of truthfulness. If they've read Marx and Hegel, great, but that's not the key factor, as far as I can see.
However,
Wallerstein and Talha,
There's a lot here and so I cannot comment on everything. I would however want to rebuff you, Wallerstein, for asserting that Marx did not spend enough time warning about tyranny and is even vaguely accountable for Stalinism, etc. Let's be clear, Marx always emphasized that the battle for socialism was the battle for democracy. That's true from at least the communist manifesto until literally his last writings. To even vaguely assert that Marx shares some blame would only be tenable if you also agree that Christ is responsible for organized pedophilia in the catholic church, and Smith, Jefferson, Locke, and Mill are responsible for the Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc etc etc. It's an old canard that needs to die.
I'm finishing my dissertation now on Marx's theory of exploitation. It's certainly true that you and I can hold capitalists responsible but the preface to capital explicitly states that capitalists, although not depicted in rosy colors, are no more responsible for the domination by CAPITAL, than anyone else would be. Capital is the dominating subject of capitalism, not the capitalists (something missed by all second international marxists onward). Marx's justice and moral critiques are not outside the scope of capitalism. Capitalism, as a mode of production gives rise to certain attitudes, forms of thought, and juridical institutions (this is the subject-object dialectic which Chomsky would reject). Those institutions promote certain values. As capital develops and expands, internally and across the globe, those values start to contradict themselves. E.g., If a firm remains profitable the workers are putting up the capital, not the capitalists. In being treated as equals, they are being treated unequally, etc. There's no internal, philosophical, logical, moral, ethical, solution to these problems. That is, we cannot logically think away, as brilliant philosophers, the contradictions present in our own subjectivity. The only solution to these socially lived contradictions (object) as they manifest in our subjectivity (subject) is to change the very structure of society that gives rise to them - changing the subject-object dialectic. This is just not how Chomsky (or even most Marxists) thinks. And it's exactly the sort of Hegelian-Marxism people struggle with.
But I fear we are talking past each other. Chomsky is a genius, I adore the man, and he's quite possibly the single greatest force for good, in terms of political activism, for the past many decades. But I do find his moralizing and comprehension of politics to be simultaneously ALWAYS informative (in terms of facts), and theoretically banal. Shakespeare alone depicts the notion that power corrupts in far more insightful ways than Chomsky.
Chris,
I said very clearly and explicitly above that I'm not blaming Marx for Stalin, but although Marx and all Marxists since (even Stalin) proclaim their allegiance to democracy, in fact, they generally seem to have little sense of how easily power, even power in a good cause, can be abused. There is nothing equivalent to the bourgeois notion of checks and balances in any Marxist thinker whom I'm aware of. Even today most of the Marxists whom I know confuse those governments which govern for the people, for example, Cuba, with truly democratic governments which are for, by and of the people. Cuba has a lots of virtues, an admirable healthcare system and a very decent educational system, but it is not a democracy. Admittedly, there aren't many genuinely democratic governments around, certainly not the United States.
Fully agreed Chris. (I see we are both Michael Heinrich fans!)
I'm actually no an MH fan. What led you to conclude I was?
(I did not like his summary book of all three volumes of capital, but I do have his forthcoming marx bio on preorder and will read it as soon as it arrives).
Ah, my apologies Chris. It was the following: "Capital is the dominating subject of capitalism, not the capitalists (something missed by all second international marxists onward)." Both the main claim and especially the parenthetical are claims that, first, I strongly agree with and, second, ones that are commonly advanced by the value-form approach for which I take MH to be the leading contemporary exponent.
Care to share why you don't like his Introduction to Capital? No worries if not!
Best and congrats on the end of the tunnel with the diss,
T
Sure, I can share I suppose. Before I do though let me make clear that it may well be the case that if I re-read the book today I would appreciate it. I was often unconvinced by his arguments against the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and his overall reading of crisis theory. But I believe those were arguments external to his book.
Only recently did I come across the 'capital is dominant subject' claim in the work of Moishe Postone, or at least that's where it finally registered for me, which led to a massive eureka and watershed moment for the genesis and execution of my dissertation. To be blunt, I probably have over 100 Marx scholars cited in my thesis, but the only two I find to be entirely worthwhile and entirely excellent are Lukacs followed by Postone.
Okay, I wrote this review for some non academic website over 7 years ago, so, make of it what you will:
I purchased this book hoping to find some succor in my reading of Capital Vol II. Much to my chagrin, all of Volume II is covered in 10 pages. 100 are Volume 1, 40 are volume III, and the rest are musings on other Marxists matters (fetish, communism, the state, etc.). Thus, the author, like most people, has a serious problem with presenting appearance and essence. The appearance is that this book is an introduction to all three volumes, where as it's really an interpretation that picks a fight with several schools of thought. Instead of letting Marx speak for himself, this author speaks for Marx, through a fastidious reading, and uses this perspective to assail other Marxist readings. For instance, instead of just explaining what Marx's theory of Crisis is, the author opens with the claim that it's simply incorrect, and then discusses some attempts to tinker with it. The same is done for the "transformation problem," which isn't even a problem if one is being introduced to Marx; instead we are exposed to academic fisticuffs. Unsurprisingly the author concludes the transformation problem is unsolved by Marx, and fails to reference the TSSI model as presented by Andrew Kliman, and others, that show internal consistency within Marx's approach, that leads to no actual problem of transformation. This same pattern carries on with the commodity fetish, Marx's theory of money, and Marx's theory of value. Instead of just summarizing what Marx says, the author finds numerous sources of contention, with Marx, with Marxist, with non-Marxist, etc.
Overall this is a good book if you've already read all three volumes, and are looking for intellectual stimulus, some ingenious ideas, interesting interpretations, etc. Or, it's a good book if you've already read Volume I and want to read just the first 100 pages. It is not a good book if you are actually looking for an introduction to all three volumes. David Harvey still has the best introduction to Volume I,* ever published, and there seems to be nothing worthwhile in here regarding volume II nor III. While I wrestled a lot with my own opinions on volume I (only because I've read Harvey's companion, and the actual book twice) and found that particular wrestling educationally worthwhile, I learned nothing about volume II I hadn't already picked up on actually reading it, independent of this authors interpretation. Moreover, Ernest Mandel's introduction in all three volumes of Capital is a far more consistent, and helpful introduction to each volume of Capital, albeit equally aggressive. Thus, don't read this book as introduction, but as food for thought, and a source to challenge your own reading of Marx. It should be retitled "Re-Interpreting Marx's Capital, in the 21st Century."
One final note. Clearly Monthly Review press has some trouble publishing this book - it came out 2 months later than they indicated on the website - and the Preface to the book is riddled with errors. The first page alone contains approximately 10 grammar, and spelling errors. Don't let this foil the whole experience. Once you pass the preface, the proper editing and translation arises.
*like this author, Harvey also provides his own interpretation of Marx's Capital for the 21st century, but he at least does this alongside what Marx actually says, instead of presenting the interpretation as Marx's actual position. So with Harvey you can weigh the ideas, in a proper juxtaposition, whereas with this author you have to have already read Capital - and understood it - to juxtapose properly.
Chris,
I see that you refer favorably to David Harvey above.
I lack your expertise about Marx, but I like reading Harvey, perhaps because he writes clearly with an eye for the ignorant lay-reader like myself. I've read his Enigma of Capital, 17 Contradictions of Capitalism, Short History of Neoliberalism and the Condition of Postmodernity. What's your opinion on Harvey in general?
Jesus I'm going to get ostracized from the job market before I enter!
Honestly, I don't like his work at all. Here's my general problem. Harvey seems to be doing 2 things that don't mesh: 1) he claims he's summarizing Marx for a broader audience. 2) He claims as a geographer what he does find useful in Marx - AS IT RELATES TO GEOGRAPHY - he utilizes, what he doesn't find useful - AS IT RELATES TO GEOGRAPHY - he tosses out. The problem is 2) has clearly bled into 1). His companion to Capital Vol I, for instance, glides past a dozen arguments in Capital 1 Chapter 1-1.3, and totally misses many of Marx's point. His companion to Vol II is largely, and he's clear about this, actually about *his interest* in credit and finance markets. Once you read his other works, as you've clearly done, you start to see that he's not trying to make Marx's arguments, qua Marx, mainstream or palatable, but is instead trying to show you what he, David Harvey, is up to, pretending he's Marx.
I do plan to read Conditions of Postmodernity, because once he drops the whole 'this is what Marx thinks...' facade and just presented his own views, I'm more than open to hearing him out. But his latest book 'Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason' was painfully bad, and a clear case of being just 2) presented as 1).
I do agree with you that he makes some aspects of Capital digestible for lay readers, and he was certainly instrumental in my ability to understand parts of Vol I-III, which allowed me to retroactively reject Harvey.
For two excellent criticisms of his work see:
https://libcom.org/files/mattick.pdf
Actually I just looked for the second source, which I briefly participated in at the new left project, but I see they are no longer an organization and the articles are no longer online. So yeah, Mattick works.
Thank you, Chris.
I found the Conditions of Postmodernity to be a bit dated. I read it a short while ago because I found it in a discount bookstore (in Spanish). It was written in 1990, and the transformation in capitalism during the 1980's which he describes (he doesn't even have the term "neoliberalism" yet) have just gotten worse. Still, it's an interesting reflection on the relationship between culture (postmodernity) and capitalism. Harvey is quite erudite about trends in art, architecture and urbanism and I certainly learned from that.
Mattick's book 'Business as Usual' and Kliman's 'Failure of Capitalist Production', both refute the Harvey reading of the 08 crisis and his theory of neoliberalism. Or at least, I think they refute him. You may want to look at those, as this is a *very* important dialogue for the left to be having.
Many lefties, e.g., Harvey, Sanders, Jill Stein, Chomsky, etc., argue that neoliberalism, which entailed destruction of the welfare state, raiding of security for the working and middle class, job off shoring, destruction of unions, etc etc has *caused* economic instability, and economic inequality. Whereas Mattick, Postone, and Kliman (among others) argue that neoliberalism was a *response* to the falling rate of profit from the late 60s/early 70s onward. Financing the economy, busting unions, raiding the state, etc., are attempts to salvage up the scraps of surplus value left to be had. Thus neoliberalism is not a *cause* of economic instability, but is a *response* to it.
Depending on how you stand in relation to that question will often determine how you stand regarding the U.S.’s ability, or the global economies’ ability, to become Sweden & Denmark. (E.g., I want Sanders to try to turn us into Sweden – since trying is better than what we have now – but overall I suspect it’s impossible).
Thanks Chris. Two points to keep it short: (a) Yep, we can just substitute Moishe Postone for Michael Heinrich and continue as is--the key point being the substance of capital as impersonal domination. Which I take to be developed by two key lines or traditions of analysis: value-form theory (tracing back to Lukacs and II Rubin among others) and political marxism (tracking by to Karl Korsch among others--though this may be my own idiosyncratic view). (b) I'll beg off the debate concerning Vol. 3 for the time being! (I.e., crisis theory; transformation problem).
Chris,
Sweden is no longer the Sweden of the 70's, but people have a lot more basic social rights than they do in the U.S.
Even in Chile everyone has health insurance and there's a national health service, which leaves much to be desired, but functions and provides basic health services to everyone, although there are long waits for surgery and a generally humiliating treatment of patients.
I've never read Korsch, only because I hear he is Lukacs light. I read Rubin ages ago, I remember liking him quite a bit.
As far as political Marxism goes, I really have no idea 'what is to be done', but in my worst moments I agree with either 1) Althusser = we are fucked. 2) Lenin is right, the working class can only develop trade union consciousness. In my best moments, I guess I still accept 2) now. But I'm open to being converted to a more optimistic perspective! :)
Right Wallerstein, I think both are proof that while a capitalist economy can be less egregious to its citizens - as the US is - maintaining Sweden at the global level is impossible. And it's impossible largely for Marxian reasons as outlined by Marx himself and taken up by Mattick, Postone, etc.
No doubt the U.S. could have universal healthcare, and we *need* it so bad. But we aren't going to have a Rawlsian society without economic hiccups.
Chris,
Thanks for filling me in on the debates taking place within Marxism today. I have a lot of reading to do. You'll make a great philosophy professor!
Ah, by "political marxism" I meant a specific analytical approach--that pioneered by Robert Brenner and Ellen M. Wood--that was designated as such (by a critic Guy Bois, and then embraced by Wood), one emphasizing the centrality of historically-specific social relations (over any transhistorical tendencies of, e.g., the development of the "forces of production," as the driver of history). Not any particular strategic approach (Lenin, Trotsky or otherwise) to the struggle against capital.
Ah okay. I've never read Brenner and very little Wood. I may or may not in the future. Right now more Frankfurt School is on my plate and some contemporary critical theorists.
Ah, well, I'll see your allergy to Harvey (which I share) and Heinrich (which I clearly don't!) and raise you one with the Frankfurt school! I've always found them more or less bloated empty wind-bags (not only the "popularizer" Marcuse but also the high priest Adorno): untethered within untenable base-superstructure frames.
For me, after the burst in the 1920s of Korsch, Lukacs, and Gramsci, on the one hand, and II Rubin and Pashukanis, on the other, I'm happy just to fast forward all the way to the late 60s revival in value-form + historical-specificity analysis ushered in by ze Germans, on the one hand, and Brenner, Wood, and Diane Elson, on the other. (With a special place reserved for Nicolaus's Grundrisse work, with all its errors I know.)
(Ok, ok, you didn't ask so lemme just shut up!)
This is getting entertaining.
Talha, what leads you to call the Frankfurt school "bloated empty wind-bags"? I am just beginning Rolf Wiggershaus's book on them, which is, as far as I can see, more history of ideas than philosophy per se.
A guy named Bois comes up with an epithet adopted by a woman named Wood -- that's wonderful.
Hadn't heard of Wiggershaus, so I explored early reviews of the book, e.g, this remark by Stefan Breuer from a symposium published in Constellations in April '95: "In Rolf Wiggershaus, the Frankfurt School has found a competent historian who is more concerned with the particular than with the universal; who traces the disunity and contradictions characteristic of the various theoretical approaches at issue and who consequently performs like a virtuoso at the most differentiated [analytical] levels: biographical presentation, immanent reconstruction and critique, the illumination of the social and political background. Wiggershaus has mastered these various tasks with sovereignty and admirable distance. The result is a masterwork of scholarly history-writing that will mark the way we think of the Frankfurt School for years to come."
A question: Is Benjamin of the School? Is he more or less bloated and empty?
Talha,
They may well be windbags. I do think Marcuse is great, Horkheimer is lackluster, and while Adorno is clearly a genius (and I love his essay on the culture industry) I haven't officially made up my mind about him. But they are all products of Lukacs's shadow! I also dig Fromm. Wiggershaus book should be okay. My masters advisor was studying under Habermas at the time it was being written and said it's the best book on the subject in terms of accuracy.
Wiggershaus's book is everything you wanted to know about the Frankfurt school and everything that you didn't want to know. It is very complete. Wiggershaus was studying for his doctorate with Adorno when Adorno died.
I don't see Adorno as Lukacs's shadow because they are simply not playing the same game in life. Adorno is a musical theorist whose Marxism is basically a criticism of capitalist culture, while Lukacs is committed to socialist revolution.
Correct, but he's in Lukacs shadow because it's pretty damn clear (to me) that Lukacs' reification essay sets the basis for nearly all of Adorno's political writings. There is no Negative Dialectic or Dialectic of Enlightenment, without Lukacs's reification essay. It's true that the third part of Lukacs's essay is rejected by Adorno but not the first two. Numerous Adorno scholars seem to mostly agree on this point.
I cannot speak to the musical writings.
What do you mean by didn't want to know? As in it details vicious ad hominem components of the thinkers? Or it's just information no one would actually care about (like what color socks Horkheimer wears)? Can you give an example? Because I'm fence sitting on whether or not to read it sooner than later.
Chris,
Just my lame attempt at humor.
My edition (the Spanish translation) is over 900 pages long, with 85 pages of bibliography (much of it in German). No vicious ad hominem attacks so far (I'm at page 64) nor details about the color of anyone's socks, although there are useful biographical portrayals of the major players. It is very detailed about the institutional details of the Frankfurt School (who were the directors, who paid for what, who earned a full salary, etc.), which isn't my chief interest. By the way, the book is well organized, so you can skim sections which don't interest you.
It's because it's 900 pages that I'm fence sitting, instead of sticking to primary sources.
Please let me know when you do finish and what your final conclusion is.
It's not a substitute for the primary sources at all, since it is more a history of the Institute than an explanation or a critique of their philosophy. Now any history of the Institute has to take into account what the members wrote and so the texts do make their appearance. So it's not 900 pages of philosophy (which is hard going), but 900 pages of history, including some intellectual history.
I apologize for my english. I write from Europe. Which is in a total mess. Some questions:
wouldn't so-called vulgar marxism be preferable to a 19th century marxism still believing in the labour theory of value? Let's be real: if Marx as the last classical economist is the ONE and ONLY text, and you're still looking at British factories circa 1850s, something must be wrong. Marx himself would be the first to call this 'idealist', since such 'knowledge' is groundless: not based in any real struggle on the ground, nor in modern economics or sociological thinking. Where's the data? Where's the marxist engagement with the progressive side of mainstream economics?
The 1970s still had some orthodox academic marxist economists. I wonder in what sense their work can be construed as more substantive than that of their mainstream colleagues? [these going back to classical economics as the new orthodoxy at that exact time, not being able to explain stagflation -they haven't been able to explain it ever since- but effectively de-legitimizing Keynesianism -as we are now realising to our detriment in Europe]. For an applied science like economics you need results, otherwise the substance will wither away. That goes for marxist economics as well. Notice that this does not apply to economic historians who are still working fruitfully in the 'great divide' debate. In history departments they are now beginning to look into world history as a new area, including good old questions of global capitalism. Mind you, they don't even have a 'concept' of capitalism that one can agree on, and are beginning from scratch again (Sombart).
that should read: great divergence debate, oops.
I am fairly certain that Chomsky would not be exactly bowled over by the astonishing insight [irony] that neo-liberalism is not the cause but the answer to 1970s stagflation...
I think it's insane to be on the left and criticize Chomsky.
Google some of Chomsky's lectures from the 1990s: you'll find he has a sure grasp of the economy and the neo-liberalist project (I think he was in fact the first to point out the systemic quality of neo-liberalsm, way earlier than David Harvey). In fact, I sense in Chomsky a welcome no-nonsense grasp of the way our lives are grounded in socio-economic reality, similar to some of the best marxist historians, say Eric Hobsbawm. But economy isn't everything; it's not a finite-determinable system; let's not give it the respect it doesn't deserve. Marxist economist have been predicting the collapse of the US economy from the 1970s on...well, now's the time for action if ever, with China literally overtaking the US as the most powerful economy in the next 10-15 years. But progressive action needs a political strategy more than economic 'proof' that, say, there is overcapacity in the system.
I guess I see Chomsky (and myself) as rather more of a socialist than a marxist. Socialism needs marxist economic analysis; otherwise it becomes utopian. But there is no more really existing marxist theory...that's the problem.
As Sheldon Wolin commented a propos d'Occupy: sympathetic no doubt, but it wasn't sufficiently intellectual.
I come out of what we in Europe call: Geisteswissenschaften. I've certainly enjoyed my Lukacs and Benjamin in the 1990s. Adorno as a personality/style is rather more dubious: according to Kracauer and Benjamin he was lacking in philosophical eros. Too rationalistic. Authoritavely put subjective evaluations. In fact Adorno on culture is mostly writing of a type we would now call blog rants! [Wiggershaus btw is excellent; forget M Jay].
Lukacs on reification is certainly a nice mash-up of Weber and Simmel. But: all of that was already studied in depth in the 1970s. Do we really want to go back to hardcore idealist Hegelian marxism?
Both Lukacs and Adorno believed -literally- that after the 1848 failed bourgeois revolution the whole of western europe's consciousness was 'reified', eg unable to think change. There's something to it, no doubt. Capitalism became 'abstract' and ungraspable, hence total passivity of the mind. Yet, european social democracy in the period 1880s-1920s managed to introduce progressive taxation and the beginnings of the welfare state.
Post a Comment